restatement of an oldie but goodie

blmeanie · 01-16-2004, 07:35 PM

The topic of when a player says , "I don't like your organization", during free agency has been brought up on one of the other boards recently.

Somewhere deep in the bowels of the suggestion forum is a request to have this buried in the game.

Meaning: don't show that the player doesn't like the organization, just have him review offers that he will never be interested in.

There could be a magic $ amount that overrides their non interest as we all know most players are greedy first.

He could give feedback something like, "It would take more than you could offer for me to play for your team" a likely response. At least allow the offers to go through.

Karros270 · 01-16-2004, 07:47 PM

Ditto, every player has there price. If the Yankees had offered Vlad $50M a year I'm sure he wouldn't have been able to pass it up although maybe his production would slump because he was unhappy there.

graham5 · 01-18-2004, 08:54 AM

I like that idea - but even more important imo is a reason why players dislike your organisation - eg you released them as a youngster, or they played for you in the past but didn't get much playing time etc etc. It annoys me that players (and coaches) just seem to randomly dislike your organisation!

Ghorticus · 01-28-2004, 04:23 AM

I don't know if this is true or not, but I find that the only players that dislike my organization are the all-star caliber players... Probably some way for the game to "balance" your team's power level or something... If this is at all the case, I seriously hope it is abolished in OOTP6.

N8dogg777 · 02-06-2004, 10:09 PM

this is a very good idea!

Crapshoot · 02-07-2004, 03:21 AM

I like this- I think "not interested" as a blanket statement is somewhat ridiculous, especially given the randomness of it. I don't mind it, as much as I detest the lack of reasoning behind it.

dougaiton · 02-07-2004, 06:46 AM

I like all ideas like that, except for the fact that they don't solve the problem - how, with an imperfect financial model in which there is no interest in making a profit and a team's earnings are used as virtual salary caps that you can go up to but not beyond, do you get a free-agent market? Say you have a utility guy coming up for free agency and a 110 mil budget - why the hell wouldn't you spend 1 mil on him, even if that is double his value and he might end up sitting in the minors?

That money makes no difference to you, imaginery GM, but it would make a huge difference to a company that has to satisfy its directors, especially in smaller teams. OOTP uses this device to ensure that a certain % of players hit the market, because no team seeks to make a profit, so to speak.

The reasoning, as crudely as I describe it, is something like this: there has to be a mechanism that recreates the fact that teams with a lot of money will still not keep all their players at the end of the year, even if it were fiscally possible, if not preferable, to keep them.

N8dogg777 · 02-07-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dougaiton
The reasoning, as crudely as I describe it, is something like this: there has to be a mechanism that recreates the fact that teams with a lot of money will still not keep all their players at the end of the year, even if it were fiscally possible, if not preferable, to keep them.

This is what the salary cap feature was added for.

dougaiton · 02-07-2004, 02:21 PM

The salary cap limits all team salaries to a set level - but the fact is even teams with a lot of money still are relatively economical. Would Todd Walker have been a decent bench player for the Red Sox this year? Probably. Could the Red Sox afford to keep him for an extra 1 or 2 million? Yes. Nonetheless, it was not profitable to them as a business to overpay players who won't add to the team in a substantial manner. In OOTP, most keenly felt in online leagues or when the computer AI has an effect, there is no reason for a team not to keep all their FAs if they can't afford it, which obviously is not how it works in RL.

01-16-2004, 07:35 PM	#1
blmeanie All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,044	restatement of an oldie but goodie The topic of when a player says , "I don't like your organization", during free agency has been brought up on one of the other boards recently. Somewhere deep in the bowels of the suggestion forum is a request to have this buried in the game. Meaning: don't show that the player doesn't like the organization, just have him review offers that he will never be interested in. There could be a magic $ amount that overrides their non interest as we all know most players are greedy first. He could give feedback something like, "It would take more than you could offer for me to play for your team" a likely response. At least allow the offers to go through. __________________ blmeanie email me at blmeanie Above link works for some email client programs but not all, email me at blmeanie33@earthlink.net

01-16-2004, 07:47 PM	#2
Karros270 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,392	Ditto, every player has there price. If the Yankees had offered Vlad $50M a year I'm sure he wouldn't have been able to pass it up although maybe his production would slump because he was unhappy there. __________________ now everybody's praying...don't prey on me

02-07-2004, 03:21 AM	#6
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	I like this- I think "not interested" as a blanket statement is somewhat ridiculous, especially given the randomness of it. I don't mind it, as much as I detest the lack of reasoning behind it. __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

02-07-2004, 06:46 AM	#7
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	I like all ideas like that, except for the fact that they don't solve the problem - how, with an imperfect financial model in which there is no interest in making a profit and a team's earnings are used as virtual salary caps that you can go up to but not beyond, do you get a free-agent market? Say you have a utility guy coming up for free agency and a 110 mil budget - why the hell wouldn't you spend 1 mil on him, even if that is double his value and he might end up sitting in the minors? That money makes no difference to you, imaginery GM, but it would make a huge difference to a company that has to satisfy its directors, especially in smaller teams. OOTP uses this device to ensure that a certain % of players hit the market, because no team seeks to make a profit, so to speak. The reasoning, as crudely as I describe it, is something like this: there has to be a mechanism that recreates the fact that teams with a lot of money will still not keep all their players at the end of the year, even if it were fiscally possible, if not preferable, to keep them. __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)

02-07-2004, 02:21 PM	#9
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	The salary cap limits all team salaries to a set level - but the fact is even teams with a lot of money still are relatively economical. Would Todd Walker have been a decent bench player for the Red Sox this year? Probably. Could the Red Sox afford to keep him for an extra 1 or 2 million? Yes. Nonetheless, it was not profitable to them as a business to overpay players who won't add to the team in a substantial manner. In OOTP, most keenly felt in online leagues or when the computer AI has an effect, there is no reason for a team not to keep all their FAs if they can't afford it, which obviously is not how it works in RL. __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)

01-18-2004, 08:54 AM	#3
graham5 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 38	I like that idea - but even more important imo is a reason why players dislike your organisation - eg you released them as a youngster, or they played for you in the past but didn't get much playing time etc etc. It annoys me that players (and coaches) just seem to randomly dislike your organisation!

01-28-2004, 04:23 AM	#4
Ghorticus Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 88	I don't know if this is true or not, but I find that the only players that dislike my organization are the all-star caliber players... Probably some way for the game to "balance" your team's power level or something... If this is at all the case, I seriously hope it is abolished in OOTP6.

02-06-2004, 10:09 PM	#5
N8dogg777 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: St.Louis Area Posts: 151	this is a very good idea!